Since the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade was overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, leftists have been roiling in rage at the thought that states are now free to enact the will of their voters with regard to killing humans in the womb. In his concurrence, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued that three other Supreme Court cases should be revisited in that they too lacked constitutional grounding—an argument made also by the esteemed Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork.

One of the decisions Thomas believes should be revisited is the Obergefell decision that imposed same-sex “marriage” on the entire country, robbing states—that is, the people—of their right to decide if intrinsically non-marital relationships should be legally recognized as marriages.

And so, leftists, livid at the prospect of states one day being free to enact marriage laws in accordance with the will of their voters, are trying to take that right away preemptively through federal legislation.

On July 19, 2022 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the absurdly named “Respect for Marriage Act” (H.R. 8404)—a bill that doesn’t merely disrespect marriage; it is hostile to marriage. The bill, which would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), next goes to the U.S. Senate.

On September 15, seven weeks before the mid-term elections, the Senate announced plans to delay a vote on the controversial bill until after the elections. According to CBS news, “GOP negotiators” who are “involved in the talks over a bipartisan plan” believe this will help increase Republican support.

Who are these GOP Senators? They are RINO Susan Collins, Rob Portman who began supporting all things homosexual after his son announced his sexual attraction to men, and Thom Tillis, who the day after the House passed H.R. 8404 announced he would “probably” support it when it comes to the Senate for a vote. I think this “bipartisan collaboration” is bipartisan in name only.

DOMA, which was passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, explicitly defines marriage:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is
a husband or a wife. (emphasis added) 

Forty-seven Republicans voted for the dis-Respect for Marriage Act, including Adam Kinzinger, Rodney Davis, Liz Cheney, Tom Emmer (chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee), Darrell Issa, Elise Stefanik (U.S. House Republican Conference chair), Lee Zeldin (who was recently defeated in the New York race for U.S. Senate), and Florida Representatives Michael Waltz and Brian Mast.

Any Republican who doesn’t understand the essential role of the nuclear family—that is, mother, father, and children—to the health and future of any society doesn’t deserve to serve in government. The same applies to any Republican who votes for a bill that robs states of the right to pass laws regulating marriage.

DOMA, which all U.S. House Democrats and 47 “Republicans” oppose, defines marriage in federal law “as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex.” In contrast, the dis-Respect for Marriage Act recognizes in federal law “any marriage that is valid under state law.”

Again, while DOMA has a provision requiring states to recognize marriages from other states, that provision specifically limits the type of marriages that must be recognized to those composed of two people. No such limit is placed on the federal government in the dis-Respect for Marriage Act.

This means that once Utah, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, or any other nutty state recognizes plural/poly unions as marriages, the federal government will be forced to recognize plural/poly unions as marriages. And once the federal government recognizes plural/poly unions as legal marriages, all states will be forced to recognize those marriages as well.

While some naïve or gullible voters view the absence of language defining marriage as the union of two people in the dis-Respect for Marriage Act as an oversight, others see it correctly as intentional—an interim step to the compulsory legal recognition of plural/poly unions from sea to darkening sea.

Take ACTION: H.R. 8404 may be taken up in the U.S. Senate soon. Please take a moment to urge our two U.S. Senators to vote to protect the Defense of Marriage Act by voting NO to H.R. 8404. Remind them, “The government has no interest in inherently non-reproductive types of relationships. The government has no more vested interest in recognizing and regulating inherently non-reproductive erotic relationships than it does in platonic friendships.”

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact/email
Phone: (202) 224-2152

U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth
https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/connect/email-tammy
Phone: (202) 224-2854

Please send a message and then follow up with a phone call this week.

Many Christians and non-Christians misunderstand the relationship between morality and religion. Many mistakenly believe that morality is the same thing as religion and, therefore, mistakenly believe that they should not advocate for policies that reflect their moral beliefs. But morals and religion are not the same, and basing our decisions on public policies, laws, or elections on beliefs that derive from religious convictions does not constitute an unconstitutional establishment of a state religion.

All laws reflect or embody someone’s morality. The moral beliefs of people who hold theistic worldviews are no less valid in the public square than the moral beliefs of those who hold atheistic worldviews—which, of course, are faith-based also. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was intended to prevent the establishment of a state religion, not to prevent religious beliefs from informing political decisions.

People from diverse faith traditions or no faith could all arrive at the same position on a particular public policy. For example, although Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, and atheists may all oppose abortion because they value human life, the reasons for that valuation of life differ. If there is a secular purpose for the law (e.g., to protect incipient human life), then voting for it does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The sources of the various parties’ desires to protect incipient life are not the concern of the government. It would be not only absurd but also unethical for the government to try to ascertain the motives and beliefs behind anyone’s opposition to abortion and even more unethical for the government to assert that only those who have no religious faith may vote on abortion laws. Such an assertion would most assuredly violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The religion clauses of the First Amendment were intended to protect religion from the intrusive power of the state, not the reverse. The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” That does not mean religious convictions are prohibited from informing political values and decisions. To expect or demand that political decisions be divorced from personal religious beliefs is an untenable, unconscionable breach of the intent of the First Amendment which also includes the oft-neglected Free Exercise Clause which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Legal theorist Michael Perry explains:

“[F]orcing religious arguments to be restated in other terms asks a citizen to ‘bracket’ religious convictions from the rest of her personality, essentially demanding that she split off a part of her self … to bracket [religious convictions] would be to bracket—indeed, to annihilate—herself. And doing that would preclude her—the particular person she is—from engaging in moral discourse with other members of society.”

To paraphrase Richard Neuhaus, that which is political is moral and that which is moral, for religious people, is religious. It is no less legitimate to have political decisions shaped by religion than by psychology, philosophy, scientism, or self-serving personal desire.

If allowing religious beliefs to shape political decisions represents a violation of the Establishment Clause and an inappropriate commingling of religion and government, then American history is rife with egregiously unconstitutional actions, for religious convictions have impelled some of our most significant social, political, and legal changes including the abolition of slavery, antiwar movements, opposition to capital punishment, and the passage of civil rights legislation.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is replete with references to his Christian faith which informed his belief about the inherent dignity, value, and rights of African Americans, a belief which he lost his life to see enshrined in law. He wrote what would now certainly generate howls of opposition:

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.  To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

“Progressives” have no objection to people of faith participating in the democratic process so long as their views comport with “progressive” positions. Liberals never cried foul when Quakers or Catholics opposed the Vietnam war because of their religious convictions, and liberals do not object that Catholic opposition to the death penalty represents a violation of the “separation of church and state”–a phrase not found in the Constitution.

I don’t recall any “progressives” objecting when Senator Rob Portman and former president Barack Obama cited their religious beliefs in defense of their radical shifts in position on homosexual faux-marriage. Portman said,

The overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible, and certainly the Golden Rule, and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker, that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue.

After his flip-flop—er, “evolution” on faux-marriage, Obama, like Portman, cited the Bible as his justification:

When we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know? Treat others the way you’d want to be treated.

In contrast, when conservative people of faith participate in the political process, citing their religion as the source of their judgments, suddenly the Establishment Clause has been violated.

Apparently neither Portman nor Obama think much about what the Bible says about sex, marriage, or repentance. And apparently, neither Portman nor Obama understand the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule does not require Christians to affirm all the desires, beliefs, and actions of all humans. It requires Christians to treat others as they—disciples of Christ—want to be treated as disciples of Christ.

And what should disciples of Christ desire? They should desire to follow God’s teaching more closely every day. They should desire to be willing to die to self and to take up their crosses daily. They should want their brothers and sisters in Christ to hold them accountable for their embrace of sin.

What the government must not do is impose laws exclusively religious in nature like Sharia laws. There should be no laws requiring the observance of any particular religion. No laws governing baptismal practices or Communion. No laws requiring prayer or circumcision. But, for example, people whose faith points to the worth of all people may legitimately work toward enacting laws that oppose capital punishment, euthanasia, or abortion. People whose religious beliefs include pacifism may legitimately work toward preventing or stopping military engagements.

No one is legally, constitutionally, ethically, or morally obligated to divorce their faith from their political decisions.

Richard Neuhaus argues persuasively in his book The Naked Public Square that a polity denuded of religion will be clothed soon enough in some other system that functions as religion by providing “normative ethics.” A democratic republic cannot exist without objective normative ethics that render legitimate the delimitation or circumscription of individual rights.

Historically, the sources of the absolute, transcendent, objective, universal truths that render legitimate our legal system have been “the institutions of religion that make claims of ultimate or transcendent meaning.”

Neuhaus argues that when religion is utterly privatized and eliminated as a “source of transcendence that gives legitimate and juridical direction and form, something else will necessarily fill the void, and that force will be the state.”

If the body politic claims there are no absolutes or delegitimizes religion as an arbiter of right and wrong, or good and evil, then the state will fill the vacuum, relativizing all values, and rendering this relativization absolute.

Lawmaking absent an understanding that there exist moral truths that are objective and universal would represent an illegitimate and hubristic arrogation of power.

What sense does outrage at human rights violations make if we assert there are no universal, transcendent, eternal, objective truths? And if we agree that these truths exist, that they transcend the subjective opinions of any particular individual, then what is their source other than a supernatural, eternal, transcendent being?

There are numerous factors that have resulted in a diminished valuation or recognition of the essential place of a belief in God as the source of transcendent truth in American society and politics, one of which is our remarkable cultural diversity. A healthy respect for the pluralism in America, however, need not and should not degenerate into what retired Campbell University law professor Lynn R. Buzzard describes as a “religion of secularism, excluding religion from participation in the pluralism.”

Princeton University law professor Robert George explains that our cultural degradation has, at least in part, resulted from an “orthodox secularism [that] stands for the strict absolute separation of not only church and state, but also faith and public life.”

Allowing religious institutions and ideas to inform our understanding of right and wrong, which is a necessary precursor to making legislative and juridical decisions, does not represent a violation of the Establishment Clause. Indeed, as Samuel Silver explains, “The government, as defined by the First Amendment and explained by its author James Madison, must remain neutral between various sects of religion, but it is not required to remain neutral between religion and irreligion.”

Prohibiting religiously derived understandings of right and wrong to shape political decisions, would, however, represent a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Buzzard writes that “Free Exercise will not be construed as merely creating a zone of non-governmental interference or the creation of an exemption from conscience-opposed activity, but the opportunity to be full partners in the pluralism of our day.”

To leftists, the idea of a separation of church and state no longer points to the importance of protecting religious freedom from the intrusive power of the state but instead refers to coercively eradicating theologically orthodox religious expression from the public square. Only secular or theologically heterodox worldviews, which are as shaped by myopic, dogmatic, unproved assumptions as secularists claim theologically orthodox religious worldviews are, will be tolerated in our pretend-tolerant society.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Do-Christians-Regularly-Violate-the-Separation-of-Church-and-State.mp3

I and others have been shouting from our virtual rooftops for over a decade that there is no greater threat to First Amendment protections than that posed by the subversive “LGBTQ” movement. Can conservatives not yet see the end of the short pier toward which GOP leaders have long been pushing them? Really?

(Im)moderate Republicans, Libertarian-leaning Republicans, Republicans with dollar signs rather than Scripture reflected in their myopic eyes have been pushing conservatives toward the end of the short pier, hoping that either spines will crumble or conservatives will tumble into the dark waters. Supremacist Court Justice/lawmaker Neil-the-Usurper-Gorsuch just gave conservatives a huge shove toward the watery abyss.

U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) is “fine” with Gorsuch’s Law—or as some euphemistically call it, a “Supreme Court decision.” U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said he’s “not disappointed by Gorsuch’s decision:”

“It’s the law of the land. And it probably makes uniform what a lot of states have already done. And probably negates Congress’s necessity for acting.”

No siree, can’t have Congress legislating, especially on controversial issues. “Let unelected Supreme Court justices make law. They’re accountable to no one,” say our cowardly lawmakers.

Conservatives get all giddy with chills running up their legs when homosexuals like Guy Benson, Dave Rubin, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Brandon Straka express Republican-ish views. “Oh gosh, the cool kids like us, they really like us!”

Meanwhile, those smart, articulate, good-looking homosexuals seek to change the Republican Party from within—like a cancer or a Guinea worm (am I allowed to call it the Guinea worm any longer?). We welcome camels into the tent at our peril.

We shouldn’t forget U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) who supported the radical redefinition of marriage to include intrinsically non-marital homoerotic unions. Did Portman defend his betrayal of the Republican Party and biblical truth with rational arguments? Nope. He said because his son is homosexual, he now supports anti-marriage. If there’s a conflict between faith and sexual license, sexual license has got to win—says Portman. Let’s hope Portman doesn’t have any polyamorous kids.

And then there’s U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) who, along with his father, pushed for and passed a Florida law that legalized adoption by homosexuals without even a piddly carve-out for faith-based adoption agencies. In other words, Gaetz does not recognize that children have an inherent right to be raised by a mother and a father. Either mothers or fathers are expendable in the foolish view of Gaetz.

When Gaetz was on The View, he defended cross-sex passers serving in the military: “We shouldn’t be banning anybody based on who they are or who they love. That’s not the kind of Republican I am.” That’s leftist rhetoric that serves leftist social, moral, and political ends.

The ways socially and morally ignorant Republicans seek to transform the party are ways that pertain to our most cherished and fundamental freedoms. The result will be government schools unfit for children, loss of parental rights, loss of religious freedom, loss of speech rights, loss of association rights, loss of private spaces, loss of Christian colleges’ accreditation status, and the destruction of women’s sports.

Here’s an idea: How about those with conservative fiscal, environmental, and foreign policy views but liberal views on social policy join the Democratic Party and try to change it from within on fiscal, environmental, and foreign policy rather than  remain in the Republican Party and seek to change its position on sexual matters.

Some “socially liberal” Republicans who don’t really respect Scripture abuse Scripture to shame conservatives, saying “Well, Jesus spent time with sinners.” True enough, he did, and we should emulate what he said when spending time with sinners (which, btw, means all humans).

When with sinners, Jesus called them to repent and follow him. He didn’t affirm their sin. I can’t recall a single Bible story in which Jesus said kudos to a sinner for his sin. I suppose it’s possible that God affirmed someone’s homoeroticism before he burned them up at Sodom and Gomorrah—nah.

To love others with Christ’s love is to model his interactions with the lost. He called them to repent and follow him. There is no evidence that he went around praising those who spread lies about sexuality and marriage as Benson and Portman do.

I hope people can hear the frustration in my virtual voice as I say, what the heck is wrong with Christians who have been rationalizing their cowardly silence and capitulation for decades? Those with eyes to see have been writing for decades that First Amendment protections for Christians are slowly eroding, and just now with Gorsuch’s intellectually and constitutionally indefensible act of lawmaking, Christians are fretting about their potential loss of rights.

When “sexual orientation” and then “gender identity” were added to anti-discrimination policies and laws; when public schools started attacking conservative beliefs as “homophobia” through “anti-bullying” programs; when public school teachers started presenting pro-homosexuality novels, articles, essays, and movies to other people’s children; when SCOTUS jettisoned sexual differentiation as a constituent feature of legal “marriage”; when schools sexually integrated bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports; when foster care and adoption agencies lost the right to place children with only heterosexual couples; when schools started firing Christians for refusing to refer to boys as girls or vice versa, Christians largely said nothing. Now courts are starting to remove children from homes if their parents don’t affirm “trans”-cultic practices. And today, when the word “sex” is essentially redefined in the Civil Rights Act by six hubristic SCOTUS justices, what will Christians do?

Do Christians ever ask themselves what kind of culture and what kind of oppression their silence, their capitulation, their spinelessness over the past 10, 20, or 30 years is bequeathing to their children? What will it take for Christians to wake up and do something? When their children can’t send their kids even to private schools free of cross-dressers anymore, will they say something? When the state takes their own grandchildren away from their parents, will they say something? When their daughter or granddaughter has a double-mastectomy at age 13, will they say something? Please, tell me, what will it take for Christians to be part of the solution?

Oh wait, I know when they’ll start pulling their weight. They’ll start right after we get almighty tax policy just right.

Long before the Gorsuch decision, the erasure of public recognition of sex differences was made inevitable by the ignorant decisions made all over the country to add the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to “anti-discrimination” policies and laws. These inclusions in laws and policies—including in school policies—were aided and abetted by the silence of conservatives, and with those inclusions there now remains no way to maintain any sex-segregated spaces for anyone.

If, for example, a university allows a confused biological man called “Sue” to use the women’s locker room, there remains no rational or legal way to prohibit a normal biological man called “Bob” from using it as well. The university can’t say, “Bob may not use it, because he’s a biological man.” First, they’ve already allowed another biological man—i.e., “Sue”—to use it, and second, such a prohibition would constitute discrimination based on sex. And the university couldn’t say “Bob may not use the women’s locker room, because he’s not ‘transgender.'” Such a prohibition would constitute discrimination based on “gender identity.”

The intellectual and legal groundwork has been laid and fertilized for the eradication of all public recognition of sexual differentiation everywhere for everyone, which means no private spaces anywhere for anyone. And in those private spaces, children are likely to see biological men with gravity-defying breasts and the usual male apparatus (yes, they do that). Spend a moment ruminating on that disturbing image, for that is where conservative fear of being labeled “hater” has led us.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Self-Identifying-Republicans-Are-Destroying-Liberty.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

I’d like to offer a few words about the separation of church and state—a concept long abused by “progressives.”

The religion clauses of the First Amendment were intended to protect religion from the intrusive power of the state, not the reverse. The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” That does not mean religious convictions are prohibited from informing political values and decisions. To expect or demand that political decisions be divorced from personal religious beliefs is an untenable, unconscionable breach of the intent of the First Amendment which also includes the oft-neglected Free Exercise Clause which states that “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

People from diverse faith traditions and no faith could all arrive at the same position on a particular public policy. For example, although Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, and atheists may all oppose abortion because they value human life, the reasons (or motives) for that valuation of life differ.

If there is a secular purpose for a law (i.e., to protect incipient human life), then voting for it—even for religious reasons—does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The source or motives of the various parties’ desires to protect incipient life are not the concern of the government. It would be not only absurd but also unethical for the government to try to ascertain the motives or beliefs behind anyone’s opposition to abortion and equally unethical for the government to assert that only those who have no religious faith may vote on abortion laws. Such an assertion would most assuredly violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Legal theorist Michael Perry explains that,

forcing religious arguments to be restated in other terms asks a citizen to ‘bracket’ religious convictions from the rest of her personality, essentially demanding that she split off a part of her self . . . [T]o bracket [religious convictions] would be to bracket—indeed, to annihilate—herself. And doing that would preclude her—the particular person she is—from engaging in moral discourse with other members of society.

To paraphrase First Things founder, Richard John Neuhaus, that which is political is moral and that which is moral, for religious people, is religious. It is no less legitimate to have political decisions shaped by religion than by psychology, philosophy, or self-serving personal desire.

If allowing religious beliefs to shape political decisions did represent a violation of the Establishment Clause and an inappropriate commingling of religion and government, then American history is rife with egregiously unconstitutional actions, for religious convictions have impelled some of our most significant social, political, and legal changes including the abolition of slavery, antiwar movements, opposition to capital punishment, and the passage of civil rights legislation.

“Progressives” seem to have no objection to people of faith participating in the democratic process so long as their views comport with “progressive” positions. “Progressives” never cry foul when Quakers or Catholics oppose war because of their religious convictions, and “progressives” do not object that Catholic opposition to the death penalty represents a violation of the separation of church and state. When conservative people of faith participate in the political process, however, suddenly the Establishment Clause has been violated.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is replete with references to his Christian faith which informed his belief about the inherent dignity, value, and rights of African Americans, a belief which he lost his life to see enshrined in law. He wrote what would now certainly generate howls of opposition if expressed by a conservative:

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

The same people who argue vociferously against the presence of religiously informed political decisions that are conservative in nature are curiously silent with regard to those Catholics, Jews, United Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Unitarians, and Episcopalians who were politically active in the movement to effect speech codes or revolutionize marital laws. One could argue that those who attend houses of worship that support legalized same-sex unions are similarly attempting to enshrine in law their religious beliefs.

When politicians like presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, former president Barack Obama, and Senator Rob Portman or celebrities like Jason Collins cite their Christian beliefs as the justification for their support for the redefinition of marriage, or fiscal policies, no one in the press or homosexual community accuses them of violating the separation of church and state.

Neuhaus argues persuasively in his book The Naked Public Square that a polity denuded of religion will be clothed soon enough in some other system that functions as religion by providing “normative ethics.” A democratic republic cannot exist without objective normative ethics that render legitimate the delimitation or circumscription of individual rights.

Historically, the sources of the absolute, transcendent, objective, universal truths that render legitimate our legal and judicial systems have been “the institutions of religion that make claims of ultimate or transcendent meaning.” Neuhaus explains that this “does not represent an imposition of the private into the public spheres, but rather an expansion or transformation or recollection of what is public.” He argues that when religion is utterly privatized and eliminated as a “source or transcendence that gives legitimate and juridical direction and form, something else will necessarily fill the void, and that force will be the state.”

If the body politic claims that there are no absolutes or delegitimizes religion as an arbiter of right and wrong, or good and evil, then the state will fill the vacuum, relativizing all values, and rendering this relativization absolute. Many would argue that there is little indication that society has heeded Neuhaus’ warning about the political implications of society’s rejection of religiously derived transcendent truths. And so, the coercive power of the state increasingly fills the space vacated by religious institutions.

Lawmaking absent an understanding that there exist moral truths that are objective and universal would represent an illegitimate and hubristic arrogation of power by the state. Acknowledging that there is objective truth regarding what is right and wrong and that it is universal and knowable is essential to democratic institutions. What sense does outrage at human rights violations make if we assert there are no universal, transcendent, eternal, objective truths? And if we agree that these truths exist and that they transcend the subjective opinions of any particular individual, then what is their source other than a supernatural, eternal, transcendent being?

Some argue that reason alone is sufficient to serve as the objective source of truth, but a recollection of Hitler’s eugenic reasoning reveals the problem with reliance solely on man’s reason. Claims of unalienable, self-evident rights, as our founding fathers understood them, both presume and require for justification, the existence of God. Robert L. Toms wrote that it was this understanding that generated “the concept that the state, the monarch, the dictator, the tribal leader, was no longer a deity to be obeyed unquestionably.” And the state neither creates ex nihilo nor confers our fundamental rights but, rather, provides legal protection for extant rights.

Charges of violating the separation of church and state are selectively hurled. Remember that next time a lefty tells you your political views must be severed from your religious views.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/cCHristians_church-and-state_audio.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

The mainstream media, including it seems virtually every political pundit on the Left and the Right, are dancing a jig over the “inevitability” of the widespread cultural embrace of a queer (pun intended) revision of marriage. These pundits, who jigged their way all over the Sunday morning news programs, pointed to the support among a troubling number of Republican “leaders” (aka followers) and youth—always known for their wisdom, maturity, and sexual restraint—as justification for their confident prognostications.

I watched four of these programs and was struck that on the issue of marriage, our whip-smart pundits are wholly ignorant.  Not one interviewer asked these esteemed pundits what marriage is, or why the government is involved with marriage, or if children have any inherent rights regarding their biological parents, or why marriage should be limited to two people if it has no inherent connection to sexual complementarity or reproductive potential. When the comparison of bans on interracial marriage to bans on the legal recognition of same-sex unions as “marriage” were alluded to, no pundit asked “In what specific ways is homosexuality analogous to race?”

Their “reasons” for their joyous jigging over the “inevitable” radical transmogrification of civil marriage are that Republicans like Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and young people support it. What the pundits didn’t discuss is either the recent and huge Reuters poll (24, 455 people polled) that was conducted between Jan. 1 – Mar.14 that showed that only 41 percent of Americans support same-sex “marriage.“  That’s remarkable considering the fact that the mainstream press, Hollywood, Broadway, and our public schools—which is to say, our culture-making institutions—are in the tank for all things homosexual, including same-sex “marriage.”

What the pundits also didn’t discuss, however, is that not all of our young people support the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage. This was a glaring omission in that the bible of many pundits, the New York Times, even discussed  it last week.

The New York Times interviewed the following young scholars:

• Ryan T. Anderson, 31, a Heritage Foundation fellow and co-author of What is Marriage? Man and Woman; A Defense
• Joseph Backholm, 34, the executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington
• Will Haun, 26, a lawyer and member of the Federalist Society
• Thomas Peters, 27, the communications director for the National Organization for Marriage 
• Ashley Pratte, 23, the executive director of Cornerstone Policy Research and Cornerstone Action
• Caitlin Seery, 25, the director of programs for the Love and Fidelity Network
• Eric Teetsel, 29, the executive director of the Manhattan Declaration
• Andrew T. Walker, 27, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Eight young intellectual defenders of true marriage, interviewed in the New York Times, but nary a mention of them on the four Sunday morning news programs I watched.

I have some perhaps surprising news for our cultural elites (or elitists) like Matthew Dowd, Jake Tapper, George Will, Peggy Noonan, Anna Navarro, and Margaret Hoover. All over America there exist smart, wise, kind, and courageous young men and women like those interviewed by the New York Times. I’m blessed to know some of them.

I received the following email from one* of them in response to my question about how to recapture the hearts and minds of young people:

I wish I had the solution. I don’t know if I do. 

My thoughts are that the work must start in the church. What has intrigued me about the progress of gay “marriage” in this country is that states have only now begun approving of it, but entire Protestant denominations have approved of same-sex relationships for years now. Progressive denominations have run out ahead of the culture on this issue. Faithful Christians need to combat the work of progressives in their own denominations. 

Pastors must also be willing to preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). What is crazy to me is how many of the churches I have been to don’t even seem to preach a text. Not any text. It isn’t that they’re just misinterpreting it. They’re simply not preaching it. I think that Christians need to be taught to expect the pastor to preach the Bible, and I think that they should be expecting him not just to read a text and speak on whatever he wants but actually exposit the Scriptures for them. 

As a part of the preaching of the whole counsel of God, pastors need to preach not only the things that people don’t mind hearing, but also the things that rub us the wrong way. There are uncomfortable parts of the Scriptures, and we should realize that the parts that make us the most uncomfortable are probably the parts we need to hear the most. 

This brings up another point. People simply need to read their Bibles. If we’re spending more time every day watching TV than we are being in Scripture and prayer, our priorities are seriously messed up. Most Christians I know would claim to love Jesus more than their episodes of the Big Bang Theory or Modern Family, but my guess is that most Christians my age will spend more time watching those shows this week than they will praying or studying the Scriptures. This is a serious problem. No wonder so many people who claim to have some sort of Christian faith also don’t have a problem claiming homosexuality is okay. They probably couldn’t even tell you if or where the Bible speaks to the issue, but they could tell you how cute it is that the gay couple they love on their favorite TV show is raising an Asian daughter.

And this reminds me that Christians need to stop watching so much TV. What a waste of a life. In Psalm 90 Moses asks that God will teach us to number our days aright that we may gain a heart of wisdom. In the face of a life that is incredibly brief, Moses asks God for help in living wisely. There is no possible way that a life spent in front of the television is a life lived wisely. 

Christians need to give up on the talk of relevance. Many churches are willing to bleed for relevance. That needs to stop. Churches and Christians must heed the words of 1 Corinthians 4 and must be willing to be called the scum of the world, the refuse of all things. Christians need to give up this desire to be liked by everyone, give up the unwillingness to offend, get off the niceness which isn’t undergirded by goodness. None of this serves the church. None serves the cause of Christ. Christians need to come to Christ to die, not come to him to be entertained. 

None of these things are innovative or new or anything like that. None of them have to do specifically with the issue of homosexuality, but I think that the problem is far broader and deeper. The problem is we’ve become frighteningly biblically illiterate. It is that we care more for our reputations than we do for truth. It is that we have churches which have set up to entertain the goats rather than feed the sheep. It is that we offer a, nicer, cheesier, blander version of secular culture and then wonder why our churches shrink. It is that we’ve become spineless in all things. It’s no wonder that we can’t stand up to a cultural redefinition of marriage. We haven’t stood up to anything else. 

I wonder how differently the culture would view marriage if every time a homosexuality-affirming play, novel, essay, film, speaker, picture book, or lecture were presented to children and teens in our schools or elsewhere, the ideas of these young people were presented at the same time. 

What is so remarkable in the jawboning of the press is their claim that Republicans who oppose the jettisoning of sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage have “moved too far to the Right.” Since when does not moving become moving? 

There are times and reasons for cultural movement. When policies and laws are objectively wrong and logically indefensible, the culture should move as it did in opposition to slavery, Jim Crow laws, and interracial marriage. And there are times and reasons for steadfast immobility as with the protection of the unborn, the preservation of sexually complementarity marriage (i.e., true marriage), and the refusal to subordinate the inherent rights of children to the selfish desires of adults.

*This friend is 28 years old, has his BA in Philosophy with Theology from Wheaton College, his MA in Historical and Systematic Theology from Wheaton College, and his M. Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary (CA). 

I hope anyone who listens to Sunday morning news program pundits does so with a critical ear.

As almost everyone knows, late last week U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) announced that he now favors the legalization of same-sex marriage. Portman is motivated to eliminate sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage because his son is homosexual.

Portman has received some criticism—justifiably in my view—from both the left and right for the self-serving and emotional justifications for his position reversal. (Read more HERE.)

This past Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the Matthew Dowd had this to say about Portman’s embrace of “same-sex marriage”:

Rob Portman I know well….And the people that I think that have criticized him and said, “oh, by the way, he only did it was a personal thing that affected him personally, he wasn’t going to do it otherwise.” To me, why do we criticize people for that? The person that started MADD, it was a personal thing. The people that—many—people who have come out against gun control have been personally affected by it. If somebody’s path to the truth, or somebody’s path to a place where we actually think they’re open and compassionate is a personal decision, God be with them.

Dowd fails to make any distinctions among the different ways personal experience can shape political actions. The mother who started Mothers Against Drunk Driving did not switch her position from supporting drunk-driving to opposing drunk-driving because her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. Rather her daughter’s death made her acutely aware of a problem that required greater public awareness and public policy changes.  That’s a wholly different kind of shift than Portman’s.

It is entirely possible for a personal experience to lead one to analyze and evaluate prior positions in light of new information. One would hope such analysis would not lean heavily on subjective feelings, which are woefully inadequate arbiters of truth, but would rely instead on an objective analysis of reasons and presuppositions. Sometimes we have to set aside our feelings in order to think rightly on issues of great cultural import.

There is scant evidence that Portman has thought deeply about the following critical fundamental questions, and the public has no idea how he would answer them:

• Does marriage have an intrinsic nature that the government merely recognizes and regulates, or do we create it out of whole cloth?
• If marriage has an intrinsic nature what are its constituent features?
• Why is the government involved in marriage?
• Is there a public purpose for marriage that justifies government involvement? If so, what is the public purpose of the institution of marriage?
• If marriage is solely about love with no inherent connection to sexual complementarity or reproductive potential, why should it be limited to two people?
• Do children have any inherent right to know (and be known by) and be raised whenever possible by their biological parents?

Dowd stated that support for the legalization of same-sex marriage is the only compassionate response. Thankfully, Carly Fiorina, gracefully and with a humility Dowd lacks, challenged his presumptuous and self-righteous claim:

I think we have to be careful, because John Boehner’s views, which are different from Rob Portman’s views, are equally sincere. And I think we get into trouble on this debate when we assume that people who support gay marriage are open and compassion and people who don’t are not.

Dowd too claims that support for same-sex marriage is indicative of openness. Really? Are Dowd’s latitudinarians any more “open” to conservative assumptions about marriage than conservatives are to “progressive” assumptions about marriage? And why aren’t those like Portman “open and compassionate” about plural marriage?

Both Dowd and George Will rejoiced in the apparent inevitability of the jackbooted march toward gender-irrelevant faux-marriage. Will started the unilluminating discussion with this:

[Portman] will not be the last [Republican to support same-sex marriage], because the demographic tide here is large, powerful and inexorable. I have said on this program before, opposition to gay marriage is literally dying, it’s an older demographic. And if you raise the question among young people, they’re not interested. And I dare say this is one of the good things about CPAC. As you saw at CPAC, this was another division and again, a healthy one. It’s largely young people attend CPAC. And this is not at the top of their agenda. It’s not even on their agenda.

Cheerleader Dowd echoed Will’s pronunciamento:

I think that there’s been an amazing — and George is right, there has been amazing — in the last ten years, I think there’s been almost a 20-point change in people’s perception of gay marriage in this country. I think Rob Portman is another domino in this whole effect. I think Republicans, any Republicans that stand in the way of this, are standing in the way of march of history on this.

They may be right, but we’ve learned from the shifting battle over the rights of the unborn that what once seemed inevitable may not be permanent. Truth (in conjunction with tenacity) has miraculous resurrection powers.

What Dowd and Will fail to address is why our youth are so awash in ignorance. Is the issue of marriage off the agenda of our youth because some sort of organic evolution toward truth has captured not just their malleable hearts, but their minds as well?

Or are there more pernicious reasons for this strange embrace of marriage as an inherently sterile, gender-irrelevant institution?

• Is the issue of marriage off their agenda because society—liberals and conservatives alike—have demonstrated utter disregard for the institution of marriage?  
• Is it because the church has failed to teach the biblical meaning of marriage as the earthly representation of the union of Christ and his church: complementary, indissoluble, and oriented toward new life?
• Is it because the church has failed to teach what the secular purposes are for marriage, and which explain why marriage is binary.
• Is it because the church has failed to help Christians understand the specious arguments used to normalize homosexuality and in this failure facilitated confusion and deception in the body of Christ?
• Is it because our young people—like those at CPAC—have grown up immersed in positive and emotionally compelling images of homosexuality and malignant mockery of conservative views of homosexuality from Hollywood and Broadway?
• Is it because our public schools affirm, espouse, and promote the normalization of homosexuality while censoring all resources that challenge “progressive” ideas?

To paraphrase Richard Weaver, ideas and images have consequences.

I don’t feel quite as certain about the uniformity of views among young conservatives as Will and Dowd do. I know some very smart young men and women who understand what marriage is and will defend it. Unfortunately, the cowardice of those  who are “literally dying” will make it that much harder for our children when they step forward to defend truth. 

Help us continue the fight for pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family values in Illinois by donating $15, $25, $50 or $100 or more today. With your support we can continue our vital work!  Click HERE to support the work and ministry of Illinois Family Institute.